Wow. You might find the video below as intriguing as I did. It covers the early part of George Wallace’s 1968 election campaign as a third party candidate. Later he chose the often unfairly maligned Curtis E. LeMay for his running mate.

It’s interesting what is and isn’t discussed in the video, which I believe was produced by a friendly Alabama TV station. Segregation is never directly addressed – which of course had been a huge part of Wallace’s political past (though leftists might hear a “dog whistle” in repeated appeals to law and order) – but then neither is Vietnam. What is discussed may sound eerily familiar to you, as it did to me. Many of the same concerns that resulted in Trump’s election were being voiced by millions of Americans (Wallace got 14% of the vote and won several southern states) fifty years ago: horror at liberal overreach, grave concern over an increasingly totalitarian judiciary pushing an always leftist agenda, an increasing sense that individual liberties were being steadily curtailed. Hey, 60s people, wait till you get a load of cultural marxism/political correctness! Are any of you Wallace supporters still around?!

May dad had an AuH20 (Goldwater in that very atomic time) sticker on his car in ’64, but voted for Nixon in ’68. West Texas used to be covered in billboards demanding the impeachment of both Johnson and Earl Warren. Those early efforts were sadly unsuccessful, and now we’re much further down the line of leftist totalitarianism, being perhaps one presidential administration away from the final demise of the “American experiment.” Fortunately, that did not come to pass, at least, in 2016. But it might in 2020, if Trump cannot roll much of this leftist agenda back.

Wallace, of course, did not earn much Catholic support. Jim Crow segregationists -and he had definitely been one – had little more love for Catholics than they did for blacks. Catholics returned the sentiment, in general. It is surprising that Wallace did attract quite a bit of support outside the South, as the video makes clear. Numerous Americans were disgusted by Johnson and exceedingly concerned over what was then the still quite nascent advance of cultural marxism and leftism in our country. Whatever Wallace was, and I’m certainly no big student of him, he seemed to appeal to developing and broad-ranging concern that America had gotten badly off-track and was in danger of becoming lost. Reagan would tap into this same sentiment to great success in 1980, finally gaining wide crossover support from Catholics for a Republican nominee.

No I am not endorsing Wallace or some of his more unfortunate views in posting this. It is to me a highly revealing time capsule of an America that was, which ain’t nearly so different as we might have thought it would be from today. If you’ve got 30 or 60 minutes to invest, I think it’s worth your time. Wallace certainly did recognize some of the gravest threats this republic faced then and now, and articulated them quite well. Of course, a few years later, after being shot in 1972, he would reverse many of these opinions and become much more liberal. Nevertheless I think this has some value from both the historical perspective and from a sociological point of view, in terms of comprehending just how long and deep the same concerns that led to Trump’s media-aided emergence in 2016 have existed. I tell you what, it is almost mind-blowing to see George Wallace packing halls in, of all places, San Francisco!! – California used to be a fairly conservative state until the invasion of illegal immigrants and burned out hippy summer of love leftovers totally remade that state’s demographics.

If you want to save time I think you can get a good feel for the whole by just watching the first 10 or 15 minutes. After that it does become a bit more repetitive.

UPDATE: Wallace took some stands that most people today find appalling. His “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” seems unfathomable. Of course, he was always more a populist than a true segregationist – that portion of the Alabama white populace that elected him in ’64 wanted segregation to persist, so Wallace became that group’s champion. As desegregation became inevitable Wallace jettisoned that rhetoric quickly, and as I noted, in later life wholly repudiated those policy positions.

Having said that, LBJ, often lauded as a civil rights pioneer, is widely reported to have said, regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the creation of the welfare state – “we’ll have the niggars voting for us (the democrats) for 200 years.” This was part and parcel with a racism inherent within much of the democrat party that I think, in much more subtle but possibly more destructive ways, persists to this day. Of course, virtually everyone has forgotten that all of those measures required strong Republican support to pass Congress, as the democrat party was badly split on those issues. Interesting how that works out, the democrats have always reaped the electoral rewards of these stands taken in the 60s today, to the extent that the entire Republican party, or merely to vote Republican, is considered irretrievably racist by the Black Lives Matters movement and others dedicated to the furtherance of Democrat political interests. The current Republican president is being presented as history’s biggest monster simply because he exists, not because of anything he’s actually done, which isn’t much, yet. This is the new normal for Republicans going forward. The media-government complex (those Wallace lambasted as “pseudo-intellectuals”) cannot be destroyed soon enough.

Meanwhile, democrats continue to cultivate a virtual plantation where they keep minorities voting reliably for them even as those same minorities cultural, moral, and even economic situation continues to horribly deteriorate as a deliberate result of democrat-leftist policies. Someone will write a great comic tragedy someday, some great masterpiece of literature, if such things still exist 100 years from now, covering exactly this comedy of errors. It would be unbelievably if it were not true.

Pulling some more content from Father’s Manual by Fr. A Coombs, SJ (before they went insane), a nice little prayer and devotion for families that are divided in faith. I certainly know the pain of that situation, while my own “nuclear” family is at present and by God’s Grace at one in the Faith, none of the rest of my family is Catholic. I know how painful that can be. I imagine it would be even more painful to be divided on such a vital matter from one’s spouse or children. I pray I never have to experience that myself, while I pray for forgiveness from my parents by alienating myself from their faith. It was something I simply had to do, for many reasons, and it has changed my life, let alone making my salvation so much more possible.

That aside, I pray some who struggle in this situation find this prayer helpful (I changed the prayer to work for either spouse; it was originally intended for husbands):

Lord God, according to your holy designs you have ordained that in matrimony man and wife shall be so closely united as to become “one flesh.” Grant now that my [spouse] and I may be closely united in all things according to your holy law.

Grant us your abundant graces that we may enjoy the blessing of being joined by a common faith. You know what it would mean to us if we could share completely the same religious views and convictions, if we could be united closely in the same religious practices and observances. You know what it would mean if we could share the same belief in the sacraments and have the same understanding of them and the same love for them.

That this may be realized according to your holy ways, let me never falter in my own personal obligations and in my observances of all that is by your law of love. Bestow, in your mercy, your bounteous graces now on my [spouse] and me so that one day, as completely united as possible in this life, we may both approach in joy your communion banquet and there receive together your blessing and your love.

Franklin Graham is calling out former President George W. Bush’s daughter, Barbara Pierce Bush, for speaking at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser on Thursday, saying that raising funds for the abortion business is like raising money for Nazi death camps.

“Planned Parenthood is the #1 abortion provider in the United States,” Graham wrote in a Facebook post yesterday. “Raising funds for this organization is like raising money to fund a Nazi death camp — like Auschwitz, except for innocent babies in their mother’s wombs!”

The Christian evangelist and son of Billy Graham continued: “Reports say they [Planned Parenthood] perform over 300,000 abortions per year. And this is the organization whose employees were caught on video trying to sell baby body parts over wine. Disgusting.”

Bush will be the keynote speaker at the fundraiser for Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas. Individual tickets to the event cost $150, and sponsorship levels go up to $20,000.

As LifeSiteNews reported, Bush’s company, Global Health Corps, which promotes “health equity,” works closely with Planned Parenthood, which Bush labeled an “exceptional organization.” A senior staffer for GHC is a former board member of Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands, and the Pacific Northwest Abortion Fund.

Bush and Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards “are enthusiastic supporters of each other’s work,” The New York Times reported in an article celebrating their alliance.

When it comes to social issues, Bush seems to have imbibed the liberal worldview of former First Lady Laura Bush, who is pro-abortion-on-demand and pro-“gay marriage.”

So, I’m an ardent pro-lifer. I know many others who are. I can’t say I know many of those ardent pro-life fathers and mothers whose kids wound up becoming pro-abort. I’m far from sure I know any couples where the husband and wife ostensibly disagree stridently on matters such as abortion and pseudo-sodo-marriage. The point being, this is further evidence whatever slight pro-life stands Bush ’43 took were probably simply for political expedience and not related to some deeply held belief.

It’s more than passing odd that this formerly leading family of the Republican party has so many close and happy associations with ardent leftists. That’s what I mean by self-serving elitist uniparty. They all attend the same institutions, go to the same parties, marry within the group, seek to please the same corporate masters, and wind up believing pretty much the same things.

Rorate Caeli, with all the good work they do, continues to hint strongly that an accord regularizing the SSPX is very close to being finalized. Rorate has also long indicated their unqualified support for this regularization to occur, even, or especially?, under Francis. The great hope, I believe, is that regularization of the canonical status of the SSPX will introduce a great leaven into the Church, strengthening the cause of Tradition all around and hastening the much longed for restoration of Holy Mother Church. Of course, most feel there is much to be desired in regularization as an end to itself, as something that is very necessary for the good of the souls within or associated with the Society of St. Pius X.

I have not been so wholeheartedly in favor of this regularization, at least not now, under Francis, because I see the man as having a very clear agenda to wholly remake the Church, and that does not include long “permitting” recalcitrant recusants like the SSPX and others who hold to the great Tradition of our Faith to remain even a minor annoyance. Many in the Society seem aware of the potential for danger, even what might be called a “betrayal,” in the regularization, for the same penalties and attempts at co-opting made in the 70s and 80s seem to be at least quite possible in the present-day Church environment, but some tend to brush these concerns aside, claiming that if the Society could “escape” the post-conciliar milieu once, they can do it again. It is this kind of thinking I’d like to address in this post.

But before I do, at what cost will the regularization be granted? I am supremely doubtful that Francis regularizing the SSPX without any changes in thought, practice, or behavior on their part is simply one of his patented acts of mercy. Indeed, some believe there already exist hints that the Society IS changing in response to the potential for regularization. An anonymous priest recently levied the charge that the SSPX has been noticeably quiet in response to many of Francis’ errors and attacks on the Faith. A brief review of the SSPX website covering articles going back a month or so does not reveal any specific criticisms of the present pontificate, even though there are continuing general explorations of the problems of the post-conciliar Church and even the notion of papal heresy considered generally. Those who follow the SSPX more closely than I do (which is hardly at all) may rebut this particular claim. Even still, I would find it remarkable if this pontiff would really regularize the SSPX without some kind of quid pro quo. And let’s consider this, even if there is no quid pro quo demanding SSPX silence on certain matters, is it not human nature to want to play it safe during periods of delicate negotiation and subsequent “re-entry” into the full, regular life of the Church?

I’d also like to note that I am not entirely comfortable with the sense of fear and trepidation I have over regularization now, under Francis, while I certainly desire it as an overall objective to be realized. Part of me desires to see the SSPX enjoy full canonical recognition/regularity instantly, which would largely simply recognize their reality as being Catholic and part of the Church. I have a certain measure of guilt over my sense that this accord, if it occurs, will be supremely dangerous to the cause of Tradition and could even set it back decades, erasing all the small gains made in recent years and pushing whatever tiny bit of tradition remains to the extreme fringes of the Church, if not wholly outside it. But I completely understand the “regularization now is the only acceptable stand” arguments and on many levels wish I could share them.

But regarding regularization and then some kind of betrayal, could the SSPX simply “go back?” We have to look at the history. Archbishop Lefebvre did not set out to create a canonically irregular body “separated” from the Roman authority or somehow at odds with it. He simply wanted to preserve some semblance of the traditional practice of the Faith amidst the insanity of the immediate post-VII years, so he started a seminary to continue training priests in the pre-conciliar ways. As was inevitable in Church of the 70s, most bishops and powers in Rome were overtly hostile to this new priestly society. It didn’t take long before charges of disobedience were levied and refusals to abandon the traditional practice of Faith – the Catholic Faith – resulted in a certain ostracization from the “mainstream Church.” Eventually the issue was forced by various matters, especially the consecrations of 1988, for which Lefebvre, the four consecrated bishops, and others directly involved were excommunicated. Some of those excommunications were lifted by Pope Benedict XVI, but the canonical irregularity has remained.

The reason I go over this very complex history, admittedly very briefly, is because it is critical to understand that what happened then is radically different to what would have to occur if the SSPX is regularized, finds its situation intolerable, and then tries to revert to its present status. What occurred very gradually and under very different circumstances then – a gradual process of alienation between the SSPX and the authorities in Rome – would have to occur suddenly, almost violently, should the Society be regularized. Back in 1974, say, no one knew what would develop 5 or 10 or 15 years later, what the “end point” would be. But today the situation would be inverted, where all would know exactly what was in the offing and what the final destination would be – more excommunications, loss of canonical status, etc. This is huge.

Then there is the factor of human nature. After fighting a long, lonely struggle for decades, and finally achieving fully regular canonical status, would the wherewithal really exist to separate themselves again should things go south? It took an enormously charismatic, convicted figure in Archbishop Lefebvre to create and hold together the SSPX during its initial, very trying period of formation and then alienation from authority. Does such a figure exist today? Again, it is so important to note that everyone now knows where another irreconcilable dispute between Rome and the SSPX will lead to, instantly, this time. None of that was certain or known when Archbishop Lefebvre was treading these choppy waters decades ago.

From a psychological perspective, for a very long time, the Society maintained that they did not need to “return” to the Church, but that the Church needed to return to herself, and then reconciliation would occur naturally. Almost, in a sense, “Rome” coming hat in hand to the Society begging forgiveness for having lost its collective mind in the 60s and 70s and asking readmittance to the Church the SSPX had maintained. Whether that notion was ever realistic or not, the point is, Rome has not changed. In fact, under Francis, it has gotten far worse than it’s been in decades. Will a return at this time not entail a certain surrender of the vital, animating focal point of the Society’s existence?

Our experience in recent years with other, admittedly much more secular organizations, is that those who have resisted the secular pagal progressive zeitgeist for years, even decades, and then surrender on some key point – like the Boy Scouts – quickly surrender on all or many points of vital import. Resistance becomes totally untenable. They become co-opted, as it were, by the process of accommodating whatever it is the powers that be demand of them.

I’m sure people within the SSPX ,or closer to it than I am, have hashed over these matters in far more detail than I can. Indeed, the SSPX-SO split off because they see regularization as tantamount to surrender. I’m sure they’re aware of the risks. At least, I hope they are. Because I fear what is at stake in this process is far more than the canonical status of the SSPX, but possibly the entire traditional practice of the Faith, extending to the Ecclesia Dei communities, tradition-embracing religious orders, and even Summorum Pontificum and the ability of some diocesan priests, under friendlier bishops than we’ve had here in Dallas, to offer the TLM. All of these latter entities either came into being as a direct result of the SSPX’s existence, and the pressure that existence exerted on the Church. Indeed, many of them were created or allowed to exist both as a form of pressure on the SSPX (keeping people who otherwise might have associated formally with the SSPX from doing so) and as a carrot to lure them “back.” If the SSPX is regularized and back within the fold, then what purpose do those things serve anymore, from a realpolitik point of view? None. How long will the be permitted to continue to exist?

These men in power today in Rome, they do not fool around, and they despise all things traditional to a degree many readers would find unimaginable. Is this a leap of Faith, trusting in God’s Grace to prevail in the end, or a leap into the abyss? On a cost-benefit ratio, do the benefits come close to equaling the dangers here?

Anyway, those are my concerns. Some will think this makes me a bad Catholic and short on faith, but I simply see so much danger here, and we have the example of the Franciscans of the Immaculate to guide us. I’m also less and less sure what real meaning canonical regularity has in a Church where adultery is praised and fornicators are held up as virtuous examples for the rest of us, while being a faithful soul is excoriated as the very worst kind of person to be. With this kind of rank (and mass) moral inversion ongoing, the finer points of canonical regularity seem like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

That was the scene outside my house about 9:30 last night. First rapidly approaching police sirens, then a loud crunch, then looking outside the window to find first one policeman with weapon drawn and then within seconds 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 police SUVs screeching to a halt. Well. I wonder what that’s all about.

Did I run and grab a handgun? Yes, yes I did. Forgot the body armor, though, but the police had things under control within seconds, so there’s that. I mean, for a brief instant, I had thoughts of someone(s) bailing out of the wrecked car and running through my backyard, and finding no way out, then what? But I’ve always had a bit overactive imagination.

Turns out it was a group of kids who have had many run-ins with the law. They were underage driving around with open alcohol containers and decided they didn’t want another serious misdemeanor on their record, so they tried to run. They didn’t get very far. The cops did not sound like these kids had committed violent crimes, they’re just very wild and unsupervised. It was mom’s car they wrecked.

Really, though, what transpired was miraculous. They hit a tree in our front yard, missing our mailbox by inches, but if they had gone 4 or 5 ft on either side they could have gone down one empty driveway straight into a concrete lined former creek now drainage ditch, or they could have smashed into my truck, chicken pen, and shed. A bit further to either side, they could have driven into either our house or my neighbor’s. So, Deo Gratias that about the most benign outcome possible occurred. The kids were uninjured. Even though they hit the tree at about 20 mph, airbags did not deploy, for some reason. Maybe someone pulled the fuse. Even the tree is virtually undamaged, at least it appears to be, for now. Trees are much, much stronger than automobiles, even large SUVs:

Shorter post: just another night in south Irving. I’d say the Tahoe is totaled.

Ace notes quite rightly that, in spite of constant barbs and insults directed at him by President Obama, who continued to blame the poor state of the economy on Bush 3 or 4 years into his administration, Bush 43 remained silent on Obama’s numerous mistakes, errors, and outright atrocities. The establishment takes care of their own, and admits of no coarse and benighted outsiders. Bush did at least note that Trump’s only been in office for a month, but his comments were distinctly hostile, especially in light of his constant silence in spite of all that Obama said against him and his administration. I’ll also add that Bush has once again proven what a family of total squishes he belongs to. The quotes below contain Bush’s comments, I add my own and emphasis:

Former President George W. Bush offered what appeared to be a thinly veiled critique of his Republican successor on Monday, as he defended the importance of the media and immigration policies that are “welcoming.”

…“I am for an immigration policy that’s welcoming and upholds the law,” Bush said.[No, you have always been a fervent supporter of shamnesty and unconstrained illegal immigration, with periodic waves of the wand that make those illegals legal. You are one of those Republicans who believe, contrary to all evidence and logic, that Hispanics are just craving a little more appeasement from Repubniks in order to transform from an overwhelmingly reliable liberal/leftist voting bloc, and into a conservative/Republican one. Phyllis Schlafly rightly recognized this as insanity, and a sure way to not only destroy all future national conservative electoral prospects, but the very cultural fabric of this nation]

He also echoed the reported comments of new National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, refusing to term terrorism as inherently Islamic.

“People who murder the innocent are not religious people,” Bush said. “They want to advance an ideology. And we have faced those kind of ideologues in the past.” [Only someone deliberately ignorant of the entire history, distant and recent, of islam could make this claim, leaving aside the most key aspects of islamic doctrine, which have always advocated the spread of islam through violence, repression, and rapine]

“I consider the media to be indispensable to democracy,” Bush said. “That we need an independent media to hold people like me to account. Power can be very addictive. And it can be corrosive.” [Where is the media being persecuted or prevented from speaking their mind? Good grief he gets absolutely excoriated as a new Hitler, racist, homophobe, etc., dozens if not hundreds of times every single day. For the vast majority of the establishment media there is nothing at all Trump can do right, and many within it have been plotting for his impeachment if not assassination since before he took office! Trump’s reaction to this has been exceedingly modest, only calling out the bias of the press the vast majority of his supporters see as being a huge problem in our disintegrating republic, and doing what Obama did – favoring certain news sites while blocking those relentlessly hostile to him. This is just politics as usual.]

“One of the things I spent a lot of time doing was trying to convince a person like Vladimir Putin, for example, to accept the notion of an independent press,” said Bush, who cautioned that “it’s kind of hard to tell others to have an independent free press and we’re not willing to have one ourself.” [Well, this is certainly the view of the establishment desperate to hold onto its power. I don’t think it’s exactly a revelation that Bush is both a part of, and beholden to, that same failing, unqualified, self-anointed elite group. I’ve generally eschewed populism in my life but the establishment has failed so miserably for so long, and has put this nation in such great jeopardy, that I am willing to countenance even radical solutions to break their power and influence, as, apparently, a great number of Americans agree. Trump was far from my first choice, but I am so fed up I took a flyer on a wildcard. What I do know is that a$$hats like Bush simply are not getting the job done.]

And now he just gets nasty:

Bush said it was important to know the truth about any relationship between Russia and members of the current administration — “I think we all need answers — but dodged when asked if a special prosecutor was required to look into collusion allegations. [Even though there is zero evidence of any improper contacts. But democrats and establishmentarians – but I repeat myself – want it to be true so very badly they are trying to wish the evidence into existence]

Sour grapes from a manifest failure? Bush almost destroyed the Republican party and gave us Obamacare more than any single person, as his miserable administration led to both the most radical president in US history and a veto-proof majority for the dems in Congress. Republicans had the House, Senate, and presidency at various times in Bush’s administration, and he played an enormous role in losing all that (with a huge assist from hideously biased media).

There is no more insider-elite family than the Bushes. They practically define the self-serving corporate-interest serving uniparty so many Americans have come to deplore. I’m hardly surprised he’s going to take shots at Trump. But I still find it galling that this man who couldn’t be moved to, say, even defend the rights of Christians, one of which he purports to be, in the face of unprecedented persecution on the part of the Obama administration. Or the unilateral pullout from Iraq that left that country vulnerable to an islamist – be it wahhabist or Iranian-dominated shia – takeover. There are endless examples to pull from, on matters infinitely more substantial than Trump’s feud with the press or fantasies regarding Russian involvement. Where was Bush on Obama’s radical pro-abort stands? I could go on for thousands of words.

Ah, well, a Bush wound up on the wrong side of the interests of the American people in favor of a narrow, self-interested elite once again. Film at 11.

Mark Dice very appropriately eviscerates a recent NBC propaganda piece that claims to honestly transmit the concerns of blatantly terrified kids regarding the Trump administration. Apparently, most New York leftist-raised children know Trump is a Nazi fascist homophobe racist anti-semite that just wants to kill him some dark skinned people. This has nothing to do with their parent’s biases, irrational phobias, and political radicalism. These are just the honest concerns of kids, concerns that were not forced upon them by parent or teachers at all.

I want you to observe the racial breakdown in the video below. Of about 12 kids interviewed, only two to four, I couldn’t quite tell, were visibly caucasian. America is still nearly 3/4 white (at least, officially, not factoring in who knows how many illegals). So this is an extremely skewed sample simply on that basis. We also know that whites broke overwhelmingly for Trump while minorities were overwhelmingly against. Maybe NBC should have expanded their search beyond some Upper West Side prep school:

Why do kids who appear to be about 3/4 white call themselves black? Is it because of the massive in-built advantages being listed as a “minority” confers? If whites were so all-powerful and possessed of so many wonderful societal privileges denied everyone else, why would so many millions of mixed race people invariably identify with whatever minority component they possess? If being white was so wonderfully awesome and opened so many amazing doors, while being minority (of whatever type) was so hideous, full of constant put-downs and outright persecutions, wouldn’t these people be clamoring to ID as white?!?

Of course we know the answer. Being a minority in this country conveys special privileges and advantages that are denied to whites, and, increasingly, asians.

Some related material on the subject below, via Ben Shapiro, who I usually like:

I’d say that’s about right. The article below details recent muslim atrocities against Christians around the world, focusing on the near total destruction of the ancient Christian communities of Assyria, which were all but obliterated by the invasion of ISIS into this region in 2014. Now that ISIS is being forced out of Assyria in a very half-hearted, desultory manner, some Christians are returning to relate the horrors they experienced at the hands of this terror group, which the US originally helped back and arm when it was thought, among our unqualified, really dumb “elites,” that ‘anybody but Assad’ was an appropriate policy for Syria and the Mideast:

Reports of Christian life under the Islamic State (ISIS) continued throughout November. Many of these came from the ancient Christian towns surrounding Mosul, such as Batnaya and Qaraqosh, conquered by ISIS in August, 2014, and liberated in late October, 2016.

One Christian man, Esam, from Qaraqosh, related what ISIS did after his sister’s husband refused to convert to Islam: “He was crucified and tortured in front of his wife and children, who were forced to watch. They [ISIS] told him that if he loved Jesus that much, he would die like Jesus.” The Islamic militants tortured his brother-in-law from 6 in the evening until 11: “[T]hey cut his stomach open and shot him before leaving him hanging, crucified.” Two other members of Esam’s family, a Christian couple, were abducted and separated by ISIS. To this day, the husband does not know where his wife is; he only knows that she was turned into a concubine, a sex-slave…….

………Another handful of Christians told how they “were threatened, forced to spit on a crucifix or convert to Islam,” but they “miraculously survived more than two years under Islamic State group rule.”……

……..Before being driven out of these now-liberated Christian towns around Mosul, ISIS plantedexplosive devices in teddy bears and toys that would be detonated when children picked them up, “killing unsuspecting families.”

Those who survived ISIS, accused former U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama of doing nothing when Iraq’s largest Christian city, Qaraqosh, fell to the Islamic terrorists more than two years ago, when its Christian population was over 50,000. One man said, “Obama has never helped the Christians. In fact, he despises them. In the last 26 months, he has shown he despises all of them. But we have hope in the new president, Trump.” A Catholic priest said: “The US government led by President Obama could have protected us – or at least helped us to protect ourselves. But unfortunately Obama abandoned us.” A young girl wearing a cross added: “We hope this new guy called Trump will help us more than Obama did.” [I would add, given the scale of the tragedy, Francis and the Church at large have been far too silent on the horrific persecutions Christians and Catholics in particular are suffering around the world]

Hey, muslims take care of their own. I know with complete certitude that Obama is no Christian, and I believe the evidence that he is either a practicing muslim or overwhelmingly sympathetic to them is overwhelming.

The article goes on to list an amazing list of atrocities perpetrated by muslims against Christians, which all occurred in one month, November 2016. There are over 20 separate attacks listed, and this list is most likely quite partial.

If one didn’t know better, you’d almost think there’s a religiously motivated war going on, but thank goodness, we know that’s not the case. Francis has told us so, even going so far as to claim that there is no such thing as “muslim terror.”

Francis will probably be dead and buried before the folly of his interreligious fantasizing really becomes apparent, with large sections of Europe being overrun by the forces of islam. Whether Rome will be one of those remains to be seen, but given the large and increasingly radical “refugee” populace there, the Church’s ancient home may eventually become untenable. That seems unthinkable, but given the trends abroad in the world, the unthinkable is becoming increasingly likely.

From a nice little prayer book my wife gave me – no hint there, I’m sure! – called, simply, Father’s Manual. There is much good advice in this book, which is presented in the form of prayers one may offer up to be a good, wise, just, and holy father.

So many men today who are having children of their own had either only a weak or no good fatherly guide on which to model their own behavior as father and head of the domestic church. Even those who had good fathers in their lives swim in a cultural sewer that inculcates perverse ideas regarding fathers and fatherhood on a constant basis. These prayers, then, can be very helpful for men who are struggling in the roles to which they will be held to a strict accounting at their particular judgment. Even for those who are very solid in their roles as father, I hope some of these will be helpful reminders. The excerpt below is on praying for the Grace of fatherly wisdom and responsibility, pp. 22-26:

Heavenly Father, in establishing the family, you have decreed that the child should have a need for both father and mother – and have made each of them, as parents, responsible to you for the souls of their children, which have been created to your very image and likeness.

So, as a father, I must realize that I shall give a severe account to you for any laziness or indifference in the fulfilment of my office.

Bring me to be a good father to my children.

Let me never be a slacker in the sacred trust which I have accepted from your hands.

It is not permitted me, I know, to push off on my wife the obligation of parental control; I have my own part of this burden and a responsibility. So may I always accept my share of the parents’ duty and carry it out prayerfully and dependably.

Your plan for the family and its needs makes it plain that the fact that I work all day to provide our material living does not permit me to remain aloof from the problems of rearing the children and directing them. Let me always realize deeply that my calling to be a parent is a full-time job, which admits of no vacation.

May I prayerfully strive to work harmoniously with my wife in all things pertaining to discipline in the home – discussing matters privately with her and working them out cooperatively. And my I never bicker with her or argue before my children, especially in matters of family policy or discipline.

May the consideration I show my wife deepen my children’s love for her as their mother.

Let the correction I give my children be quiet and fatherly, yet firm – and may it always be the fruit of prayer.

And in the corrections that I must administer, may my children be able to to look to me and see in my life an example of everything that, as a father, I require of them.

Let them see in me a fitting example of truthfulness at all times, of honesty in dealing with them and with my fellow man, of reverence for God in all I say and do, of dignity, always, in my speech, which should never be such that I may not approve the same words in them. But rather in all things may I teach first by actions what I must require of my children by fatherly command.

Teach me, heavenly Father, to model my thinking and willing and acting after your own all-wise fatherhood and thus may I return responsibly and reverently to you the souls of the children you have entrusted to me.

———–End Quote———–

I should add, while the above was certainly tailored specifically for fathers, mothers could certainly derive great fruit from such prayers/meditations, with suitable changes. The unique role of the father, however, has been often even more under threat in our culture than has that of the mother, or at least some strange derivative of what was traditionally associated with motherhood. Then again, men aren’t as frequently sold a horrific pack of lies asserting that killing one’s own offspring is the way to personal empowerment. So perhaps the threats are a bit differently orientated, but of the same magnitude for both mothers and fathers.